Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak  No doubt most people will point to the weather at the main reason England failed to win and partially that is true, but it also highlights the stupidity of our batsman walking off for bad light when they had the chance to bat on. That light was still good enough to bat in, they do it when they want to, remember Nasser Hussains sides win in the sub-continent played in almost total darkness?
So they only have themselves to blame for failing to win this game, as they'd rather be sitting in the pavilion with their feet up than batting in poor light. That sadly, epitomises the overall ambitions of this England side. |
I agree completely. Either they were unjustifiably overconfident, or they were just being p*$$!*s generally. New Zealand don't have any express bowlers, the risk of injury you'd think was pretty minimal- so, why ever they went off, they have only themselves to blame for managing a draw.
Quote:
|
The balance of the side is wrong, as I keep on saying, with 4 frontline bowlers, they simply did not have the bowling firepower to bowl NZ out twice. Anderson continues to be erratic and inconsistent, Broad is improving and accurate but lacks threat and intent and when Sidebottom goes AWOL nothing seems to happen. Panesar plugged away but wasn't helped by the pitch.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael Nope. After years of hiding behind a 5 man attack (rather than demanding the bowlers stand up and be counted) the balance is finally right. That's not to say the personnel are right... but we're talking minor tweaks: England's first choice XI is almost there... |
Surely that "stand up and be counted" argument applies to the batsmen as well? Whatever you do, either the batting or the bowling is going to get some possibly unnecessary cover. And as Scott says, England's bowling isn't always reliable. Given that the best way of insuring victory is to take 20 wickets, and that England's most successful period in 20 years was built around the 5-man attack, why not err on the side of caution in favour of the bowling?
Quote:
|
Seems to me that Moores is well on the way: just needs to find the ***** to pick an out and out gloveman, to ditch Anderson and to push Bell right up the order (all of which are far, far more likely than they would have been with Fletcher at the helm).
|
I'm open to Bell opening (although given his recent form, Strauss would be mightily unlucky to miss out in favour of Shah or anyone else- maybe that should be a long-term thing.) As for the 'keeping, I like Mustard, but Ambrose looked pretty good to me yesterday- if he had a bad first innings (I didn't see), then his second was a big improvement. Regarding Anderson, he did have a good match and it would again be unfair to drop him now. When his form goes, then yes (like anyone else) but not yet.